Jack Barnes: “We have our hands on the throat of feminism. … This is the time to squeeze harder.”

Jack Barnes, a volatile American Men’s Rights activist known for his harassment of feminists on Twitter, is now threatening to unleash a new offensive designed “to strike fear in the hearts of feminists.” In a post on Men’s Rights hate site A Voice for Men bristling with violent language, Barnes declares that

we have our hands on the throat of feminism. This isn’t the time to ease up. This is the time to squeeze harder.

The ostensible subject of Barnes’ post is a several-weeks-old piece on News.Com.Au by Australian writer Kerri Sackville about a road-raging, red-Jag-driving man who shouted “slut” at her when she honked at him for blocking the road. Barnes adds to the abuse, declaring her a crazy, misogynist (!) “cunt.”

The real source of Barnes’ fury at Sackville is a campaign she launched last December to “name and shame” men who sent abusive and threatening messages to women online using their real names.

And that’s what leads Barnes to what he says is the real “point of this article,” a declaration of virtual war against “Sackville and her fellow feminazis.” He writes:

Here is what we do. We make it hurt. If they want to continue to do this then we make them regret it. They need to learn that their are consequences for doing this. They need to learn that we will extract a pound of flesh, figuratively speaking. They need to learn to fear retribution from us.

Barnes claims that this “retribution” won’t include physical violence, but he doesn’t specify exactly what it will include, merely suggesting that he will soon have the “tools” necessary “to strike fear in the hearts of feminists.” And by soon he means next month.

We won’t use violence. We don’t need to use violence. How do we make these feminists think twice before going all Gestapo on any guy who has the balls to call out feminism or individual feminists on their FemKKK behavior? Well I can’t tell you that right now. Lets just say a plan is in place and being brought into fruition as we speak. Expect it to be revealed before the end of February provided that everything goes according to plan.

Barnes then launches a preemptive strike on any even slightly ethical MRAs who might be “wringing their hand” [sic] over his mysterious threats, bluntly informing them that “this fight is about to get dirty. Deal with it.”

Barnes — using a rhetorical switcheroo common amongst MRAs — frames his threatened offensive as a defensive move. Feminism is dying, he asserts, and like many dying beasts it is lashing out against its enemies in a desperate frenzy. He predicts that

feminists will become increasingly more vicious. … MHRAs with lives ruined, imprisoned and dead is not outside the realm of possibility.

As he sees it, not just Sackville and her fellow Australian ally, writer Clementine Ford, but all “public faces of feminism” are fair game for “retribution” for whatever offenses he’s decided they’re guilty of.

You don’t get a warning. You all have engaged in this despicable behavior. You will receive consequences. Go ahead and whine and cry about the horrible MRAs threatening you. We don’t care. This isn’t a threat. This is a statement of fact. We will not use violence. But we will make you hesitate to ever do these things again.

Barnes apparently believes in some sort of collective guilt, making clear that he will hold prominent feminists “responsible” not only for their own alleged crimes, as he defines them, but for the behavior of what he calls their “mindless minions.”

This is not the first time Barnes has announced his desire to harass feminists into silence. Usually he remembers to put the word “harass” in quotes, as if this will be enough to transform harassment into something that doesn’t sound quite so bad.

I made it clear I knew nothing about the doxxing or the doxxer (who later ended up doxxing me). I condemned the doxxing, publicly and repeatedly. It didn’t matter: Barnes declared the doxxer to be a “cult follower” of mine, so anything they did was somehow my fault.

“I promise you David,” he wrote in an AVFM post, “that for the rest of your life there will be nights you cry yourself to sleep in anger and frustration over me.”

Indeed, he wrote, if anything happened to his family as a result of the doxxing, he would literally show up on my doorstep for

a face to face in person discussion … No cops. No lawyers or prosecutors. No judges. No jury. No hiding behind a computer. Just me and you. …

I don’t know of any parent that would blame me for stomping a mud hole in your fucking ass and walking that motherfucker dry for what you have done!

What I’ve “done” is to condemn the doxxing that Barnes blames for putting his family at risk.

Barnes is hardly the only AVFMer who believes in this sort of guilt-by-non-association; assorted others rallied behind him on Twitter, repeating his accusations and defending his threats. The title of Elam’s video on the doxxing declared bluntly that I was “Trying to Get MHRAs Killed.” How? By writing critically about AVFM.

Elam’s bizarre inflation of my carefully documented criticism of MRAs into an attempt to literally “get MHRAs killed” is not only jarring; it’s ominous. By pretending that the writings of feminists leave MRAs, quite literally, in mortal peril, Elam, Barnes and others associated with AVFM can justify almost any actions they might take against feminists, no matter how sleazy or underhanded or even violent, as a form of self-defense.

Abusers who think — or simply pretend — that they are the victims are some of the most dangerous people in the world.

Theoretically there are different consequences. (Not guilty through automatism and you’re totally free, not guilty through insanity and you can be detained under a hospital order). In practice some judges ignore the distinction and the Court of Appeal hasn’t criticised them for that.

Well, I’d say that really if someone is found not culpable due to an internal factor that is no longer present there’s really no valid medical reason for detaining them under a hospital order, so neither of those conditions should have being detained under a hospital order as a likely outcome.

I guess that automatism should probably allow hospital detainment because theoretically in the science fiction future someone could get through an entire trial while still under an external influence, but in the event that it actually comes up someone will probably be able to find another legal basis to detain them for treatment.

Interesting that ‘Insanity’ as a legal… ‘explanation’ I guess (it isn’t really a defense) can be used for diabetics: one of my friends is diabetic, and recently she took her insulin a bit too long before starting to eat dinner and went somewhat hypoglycemic as a result. I can definitely see that as a result.

‘Insanity’ is one of those words that has a specific legal meaning somewhat divorced from its common meaning. It refers to someone in a state such that they did not know what they were doing, could not understand that it would be considered wrong by society, or were unable to control their actions.

Incidentally, at least in the US ‘Insanity’ is a defense; specifically an affirmative defense. As I understand it, that basically means a defense of the form “The defendant did do X as stated by the prosecution, but it’s not a crime because Y.” Other notable ones include self-defense (defendant did use force, but it was justified) and fair use (defendant did use copyrighted material without permission, but in a way that constitutes fair use).

Also, it’s not often invoked because as Alan mentioned it can justify detainment, and that basically lasts until a doctor is willing to say that they do not pose a threat to themselves or others, which can take a very long time indeed.

As you probably know, we have a bit of an anti weapons culture. Carrying a sword openly would normally be an offence.

Although some Tai Chi guy had his appeal allowed on the grounds that he liked going to the woods and swinging a sword around as part of it. Martial arts generally is considers a “good reason” but it all depends on the situation obviously.

Fancy dress is another good reason. Someone who had a truncheon as part of his police costume had his appeal allowed.

Yeah, you pretty much nail it. And of course a hospital order is just a possibility where insanity succeeds, the judge only has to consider one, they don’t have to impose it.

One thing though, in common law jurisdictions, self defence isn’t a positive defence as such. Most laws criminalising ‘violence’ have ‘unlawful’ as an element of the offence. The procedural rules differ but once a defendant raises self defence the prosecution must prove to the criminal standard that the violence *wasn’t* in self defence.

@Alan, guy:
Point taken about the legal meaning of ‘defense’. I was more referring to the fact that it’s usually more a mitigating factor than a purely exonerating one. As noted, ‘not guilty by reasons of insanity’ doesn’t mean you can’t be locked up for safety and observation depending on the circumstances.

As was mentioned, hard cases make bad law. And it’s my understanding that a lot of the apparently contradictory and inexplicable aspects of the law can often be traced back to one specific instance in the past, and the ‘patch’ that was applied to stop that particular case.

@Alan:
Well, yes, there are some laws, especially local ones, where you read the law and the only thing you can think of is ‘Somebody must have actually done that, because nobody would think to write a law against it unless they had.’

I’m not suggesting anybody should shoot them but if they met with a “tragic” “accident” I’d be smiling.
Just saying. (my original comment)

chill. dude. wishing “tragic accidents” upon people is not cool. even when they are hate-mongering twerps.

That is out of line ethically. Being a huge jerk does not make one worthy of death I would think. They still have families that care for them.

I can see my first comment here got taken out of context. Let me just clear this up. DUDE.
I’m not wishing anything on him by using “quote-unquote”, nor was I suggesting anybody should attack him, just saying if somebody where to deliberately kill him I would not consider it a tragedy for humanity and it would not sadden me in the slightest. My smiling is a default state not a result of others potential acts of violence.
I don’t see why that is unethical to state as a fact, it’s not a call for violence and since he has “declared war” on my sex neither do I owe him a shred of kindness. Nor do I owe you to let you go tone policing and tell me how as a woman I should not express my disdain for those who would attack me just for existing with a vagina.

p.s.
I’m not angry at you guys but you seem to have forgotten that the ability to “turn the other cheek” comes from being in a position where you have the power of privilege to disregard when somebody wrongs you or your group. If I am angry so what? Is it not legitimate and valid for the down trod of the XX chromosome club to be angry when an MRA makes threats against us?
Not saying I don’t appreciate what you are doing but as allies against misogyny try to think about that next time please. Your words have power. Please don’t silence women.

As for your comment, I don’t think it was taken out of context at all. It’s not okay around here to wish for and/or express pleasure in pain inflicted on others. That’s why you see so many people use curses like, “may he step on a thousand legos.”

That has nothing to do with tone policing (you’re allowed to use an angry tone) or silencing women (we’re almost all feminists / womanists). I understand being frustrated or feeling like your comment wasn’t a big deal because of how the Internet is and how it was hyperbole (I assume you don’t actually wish harm on this guy), but it’s still against the rules here.

Nah, don’t buy it Iat. You said you wouldn’t mind if he died a tragic death. Fuck that and my personal eggstremely sensitive troll raider sez welcome back now that Max has run out of steam. Please do not continue.

Er… What? “Turn the other cheek” was a (paraphrased) quote uttered by a man who was the leader of a small splinter religious group who was killed for preaching lessons that went against the beliefs of those in power.

Yes, Christianity became a major religion eventually, but at the time, Jesus was very much NOT a part of a privileged caste. The teaching does not apply only to the privileged.

Re weird laws–I was told that in the US, at least, a lot of these extremely specific weird laws were put in place to as an excuse to legally harass black people. (Back when law enforcement thought it needed some justification, I guess.)

> Bernardo Soares
You are welcome. Even in France, the difference between the two is quite blurred, as people are losing interest in their language.
If reading a foreign language is a pleasure, you may learn/refresh it faster ; so maybe if you choose translations of english books you like, this will help ?
About Max, saying that “interroger” means “poser une question” is right, the problem is all that go around his way to explaining his mistake. Rather than humbly admit he made a language mistake, he used it to justify his agressivity, as if it was to the other languages to comply to his own !
“Interroger” alone do not pressupose, in French, of the tone of the question. It can be polite (a student to a teacher) to agressive (a investigator to a murder suspect). If you want to add an indication of the tone, you have to add an adjective : “interroger poliment” implies you ask politely, “interroger violemment” implies you ask violently.

> Scented Fucking Hard Chairs & Opposablethumbs
Thank you very much for the original expressions ! I admit i was too lazy at this time to look for them on Internet. I wonder which one came first.
Opposablethumbs, your french is quite good enough, and understandable. Quite better than a lot of French people, actually, as the level keeps going down here.

> kupo
No need to thank, i just add my voice to everybody here. You are all really strong to bear this kind of behavior to such an extent !

Chuck Johnson was forced off Twitter for making threats. Why is Jack Barnes still allowed on Twitter given his many threats? His claim that his tweets are not threatening violence is laughable and implausible.

Merci pour cette clarification. I prefer to read in the original language (and English is a second language to me, too); right now, I’m mostly reading bédés and francophone African literature. I should also watch more TV in French to get used to listening. I don’t have a lot of problems with reading even scientific literature, but listening and talking is more difficult. Funnily enough, I have more problems with actual Frenchmen than with native French speakers from Africa (who I often interact with), because the former speak fast as hell. Especially presentations on conferences are hella difficult to follow.

hey everybody … so, i’ve been a pretty regular reader here for some time and just now feel compelled to crawl out of the woodwork and introduce myself, even though i have nothing of substance to add to the discussion at the moment.
a couple of hours ago (what now feels like an eternity), in a moment of weakness – and against my better judgment – i dove head first into the hell hole that is the red pill subreddit (which i haven’t done before; their lack of critical thinking skills and bizarre mental acrobatics that completely distort reality are bad enough – what’s even worse however is the thinly veiled hate that oozes from many comments, but you know that already; as a woman, i’ve experienced some pretty hurtful and offensive shit so far, but never that kind of blatant disregard for my existence as a human being with agency and rights (at least not in „normal“ situations, right to my face, so i’m probably somewhat privileged here)), which was mentally exhausting and completely drained what little brainpower i had left after a long day. and now i’m grossed out by the vile bs i read and am unable to form any coherent thoughts or write anything other than rambling non-comments. words – how do they work?!

anyway, i just wanted tell all of you that you basically restore my faith in humanity on a regular basis. this may sound like hyperbole, but it’s not far from the truth. you’re good people, and i hope to hang around here more often. 🙂

(btw: if it looks like i’m butchering the english language, it’s because i’m not a native speaker. please accept my sincere apologies for making your heads hurt with weird sentence structures and almost-but-not-quite-right word choices etc. 😉

*sigh* I’d have thought in the face of the serious vitriol being documented, exposed and mocked by David a little exaggeration of dark humour wouldn’t have been such cause for ire. Of course I don’t wish genuine ill on anyone, being angry is one thing but being bitter is not productive. I’m a little surprised that anyone took it as a serious wish for violence tbh, and that’s the truth whether you choose to believe it or not.
:S
Even if I thought it defied the comments policy, which wasn’t my intent, I can’t delete or edit that comment now anyway. What’s said is said, this back and forth now is kinda useless though if David wishes to delete it he’s welcome to and I’m sure he will if he feels it necessary.

Rarely has it been so informative (or entertaining) to fall down a rabbit hole at 4 am. Thank you all for your masterful handling of Max, who had me fooled until somewhere on page 4. I feel as though I’ve now audited Trollbusting 201. Thanks especially to @occasional reader for exquisitely schooling him in his assumed tongue, to @Scildfreya for the neuroscience primer, and to @Alan and others for the law summary. I am humbled by the breadth and depth of the cumulative knowledge base here, so for now I’m going back to quietly learning from you folks. Kudos.

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but I noticed a newcomer arriving and wanted to say hello and welcome! Hello bat-cat, and welcome! I hope that David’s writings can help soothe the pain of your fall into red pill territory. It’s sort of spiky over there.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.